CAR_Public/121129.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 29, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 237

                             Headlines

ADVOCAT: Class Action v. Board Dismissed on Procedural Grounds
BB&T CORP: Appeals in Suits Over Checking Accounts Remain Pending
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Employees Suit vs. Unit
CAMERON INT'L: Still Awaits Okay of Deepwater Horizon Suit Deals
CAPITAL CITY: Recalls Cherry Tomatoes Due to Salmonella Risk

CHARTER COMMS: Sued for Improperly Charging Modem Lease Fees
CONAGRA FOODS: Sued for Misclassifying Frontline Supervisors
DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Price-Fixing Suit
DENNY'S: Workers File Overtime Class Action
FANNIE MAE: Former Controller Dismissed From Class Action

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Ex-FDA Head to Testify in Antitrust Class Action
GLOBAL AVIATION: Furloughed Pilots' Class Suits Dismissed
GOOGLE: Gets Outside Support in Suit Over Book Digitization
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending

HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Fuel Economy Ratings
JDA SOFTWARE: Sued Over Proposed New Mountain Capital Buyout
KATT WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Botched Stand-Up Show
KMART: Class Action Trial Over "Suitable Seating" Opened

LEGENDARY BAKING: Recalls 726 Pcs. of 9-Inch Apple Lattice Pies
LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Deloitte Dismissed From Audit Class Action
MAINE: State Retirees' Suit Obtains Class Action Status
MANPOWER INC: Still Awaits Final Okay of Vacation Pay Suit Deal
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Atty. Fee Ruling Remains Pending

MF GLOBAL: PwC and CME Group Added as Defendants in Class Action
MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC: Faces Class Action Over High Premiums
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Polyurethane Foam Products Pending
NEWMAN'S OWN: Recalls 16-Ounce Lite Honey Mustard Dressing
PEET'S COFFEE: Files Stipulation of Settlement with Shareholders

PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit
PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: FSC Still Named Co-Conspirator in Class Suits
SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Gets Favorable Ruling in Appeal
SMITH MICRO: Court OK'd Deal to Dismiss Securities Suit in Aug.
STARBUCKS CORP: Owes $14.1 Mil. to Baristas in Tip-Sharing Suit

STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Suits Over Forex Transactions
STATE STREET: Defends Suits Filed by TAG Investment Mgmt. Clients
STATE STREET: Four Shareholder Suits Remain Pending in Boston
STATE STREET: To Appeal Class Certification Order in ERISA Suit
STEWART INFORMATION: Awaits Affirmation of Claims Dismissal

SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
TD BANK: Judge Allows Class Action Over Layoffs to Proceed
VODAFONE GHANA: Customers Mull Suit Over Capped Broadband Package
VOLKSWAGEN: Sued Over Defective Tiptronic Transmissions
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 12 Cert. Hearing in Anda Suit Set

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Certiorari Bid Sought in AndroGel Suit
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in Cipro Litigation Stayed

                          *********



ADVOCAT: Class Action v. Board Dismissed on Procedural Grounds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geert De Lombaerde, writing for Nashville Post, reports that a
putative class action against the board of Advocat was dismissed
from District Court earlier this month on procedural grounds,
specifically because it did not satisfy the federal case
requirement that the claim involved was for more than $75,000. But
that doesn't mean the case, which centers on the buyout approach
made by the Covington Investments group that owns about 15 percent
of Advocat, is over: The plaintiffs can refile in state court if
they choose.


BB&T CORP: Appeals in Suits Over Checking Accounts Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in lawsuits challenging BB&T Corporation's customer
checking account practices remain pending, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily
challenging the Company's daily ordering of debit transactions
posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to
2010.  The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment;
however, no class has been certified.  The court initially denied
motions by the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to
be submitted to individual arbitration.  The Company then filed
appeals in all three matters.  There have been numerous subsequent
procedural developments.  These include an appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court in one matter which resulted in a November 2011
decision that benefited the Company and two decisions in July 2012
in two other matters by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ordering arbitration.  Nevertheless, at present the issues
raised by these motions and/or appeals have not been finally
decided.  If the motions or appeals are ultimately granted, they
would preclude class action treatment.  Even if those appeals are
denied, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses against
these matters, including class certification.  In addition, no
damages have been specified by the plaintiffs.  Because of these
circumstances, no specific loss or range of loss can currently be
determined.

BB&T Corporation -- http://www.bbandt.com/-- operates as a
financial holding company for Branch Banking and Trust Company
that provides various banking and trust services for retail and
commercial clients.  The company's deposit products include
noninterest-bearing checking accounts, interest-bearing checking
accounts, savings accounts, money market deposit accounts,
certificates of deposit, and individual retirement accounts.  Its
loan products comprise commercial, financial, and agricultural
loans; real estate construction and land development loans; real
estate mortgage loans; and consumer loans.  As of December 31,
2011, it operated 1,779 branch offices in North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, West Virginia, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.
The Company serves small and mid-size businesses, public agencies,
local governments, and individuals.  BB&T Corporation was founded
in 1872 and is headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Continues to Defend Employees Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC continues to defend its
subsidiary against class action lawsuits brought by its employees,
according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2012.

Personal injury claims, including asbestos claims and employee
work-related injuries and third-party injuries (collectively,
other personal injury), are a significant expense for the railroad
industry.  Personal injury claims by employees of the Company's
principal operating subsidiary, BNSF Railway Company, are subject
to the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
rather than state workers' compensation laws.  FELA's system of
requiring the finding of fault, coupled with unscheduled awards
and reliance on the jury system, contributed to increased expenses
in past years.  Other proceedings include claims by non-employees
for punitive as well as compensatory damages.  A few proceedings
purport to be class actions.  The variability present in settling
these claims, including non-employee personal injury and matters
in which punitive damages are alleged, could result in increased
expenses in future years.  BNSF has implemented a number of safety
programs designed to reduce the number of personal injuries as
well as the associated claims and personal injury expense.

Although the final outcome of these matters cannot be predicted
with certainty, considering among other things the meritorious
legal defenses available and liabilities that have been recorded
along with applicable insurance, BNSF currently believes that none
of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity.
However, an unexpected adverse resolution of one or more of these
items could have a material adverse effect on the results of
operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.


CAMERON INT'L: Still Awaits Okay of Deepwater Horizon Suit Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
A blowout preventer ("BOP") originally manufactured by Cameron
International Corporation and delivered in 2001, and for which the
Company was one of the suppliers of spare parts and repair
services, was deployed by the drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in
2010 when the rig experienced an explosion and fire resulting in
bodily injuries and loss of life, the loss of the rig, and
discharge of hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico.

The Company was named as one of a number of defendants in over 350
lawsuits asserting claims for personal injury, wrongful death,
property damage, pollution and economic damages.  Most of these
suits were consolidated into a single proceeding under rules
governing multi-district litigation.  The consolidated case is
styled: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deep Water Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL Docket No. 2179.

On December 15, 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with
BP Exploration and Production Inc. (BPXP), guaranteed by BP
Corporation North America Inc., pursuant to which BPXP agreed to
indemnify the Company for any and all current and future
compensatory claims, and to pay on behalf of the Company any and
all such claims, associated with or arising out of the Deepwater
Horizon incident the Company otherwise would have been obligated
to pay, including claims arising under the Oil Pollution Act,
claims for natural resource damages and associated damage-
assessment costs, clean-up costs, and other claims arising from
third parties.  The agreement does not provide indemnification of
the Company against any fines, penalties, punitive damages or
certain other potential non-compensatory claims levied on or
awarded against it individually.  The Company, however, does not
consider any of these, singly or cumulatively, to pose a material
financial risk to it because, while the United States brought suit
against BP and certain other parties associated with this incident
for recovery under statutes such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA) and the Clean Water Act, the Company was not named as a
defendant in this suit.  Additionally, BP and the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee ("PSC"), appointed by the Court in the MDL
proceeding to represent the interests of third-party claimants,
concluded an "Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement"
and a "Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement" which
were filed with the Court on April 18, 2012.  Under the terms of
these settlements, the PSC, on behalf of these claimants who would
be included in the proposed settling classes, has released any
claim against BP and certain other parties, including the Company,
for punitive and other non-compensatory damages.  This settlement
has yet to be approved by the Court.  The proposed settlement, and
the release of punitive and other non-compensatory damages against
Cameron, will not affect the claims of (i) persons who opt out of
the settlement; (ii) persons outside of Alabama, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and certain counties in Florida and Texas, the
geographic scope of the settlement; (iii) persons outside the
class of lost business covered by the settlement class such as
gambling, real estate development and insurance; and (iv) the Gulf
states and local government entities.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Cameron International Corporation's operations are organized into
three separate business segments, namely: Drilling & Production
Systems (DPS), Valves & Measurement (V&M) and Process &
Compression Systems (PCS).  The Company is headquartered in
Houston, Texas.


CAPITAL CITY: Recalls Cherry Tomatoes Due to Salmonella Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Capital City Fruit, Inc. of Norwalk, Iowa, is voluntarily
recalling cherry tomatoes shipped by Rio Queen Citrus Inc. on
November 10, 2012.  Capital City Fruit, Inc. received notification
from Rio Queen Citrus, Inc. following the discovery of a
potentially pathogenic organism Salmonella by the Food and Drug
Administration in random testing of an incoming load of cherry
tomatoes.  Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Cherry tomatoes associated with the Rio Queen Citrus, Inc. recall
received on November 12, 2012, and used in the packaging of
certain lots of Capital Brand Clamshell Cherry tomatoes have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.  These cherry
tomatoes were shipped to retail stores from November 14, 2012,
through November 18, 2012.

Capital City Fruit, Inc. is issuing this voluntary recall linked
to the Rio Queen Citrus, Inc.'s recall to minimize any risk to
public health.  The recalled product was sold in retail stores in
Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,
Minnesota and Wisconsin.

There have been no reported illnesses attributed to the items
listed in this recall.  Capital City Fruit, Inc. has notified the
retailers who have received the recalled product and directed them
to remove it from their store shelves.  Consumers who purchased
affected products listed in the table below should not consume
them and should destroy or discard them.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the United States
Food and Drug Administration.

The product being recalled is a Capital Brand 1-pint clamshell
container.  The label of the clamshell container is located on the
top of the container and has a 4-digit date code on the lower
right side of the label (see example below).  Clamshell cherry
tomatoes with the 4-digit date code listed below should be
discarded.

                               Pack                  Clamshell
  Brand     Product            Size     Case Lot #   Date Code
  -----     -------            ----     ----------   ---------
  Capital   1 Pint Clamshell   1 Pint   P96290001       4604
  Brand     Cherry Tomatoes             P96330002       4605
                                        P96477001       4606
                                        P96368001       4605
                                        P96500001       4701
                                        P96313001       4604
                                        P96330007       4605
                                        P96290006       4604
                                        P96500006       4701

A picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329438.htm

Consumers may contact Capital City Fruit, Inc. at (800) 535-6826,
Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Central Standard Time)
except holidays, or at http://www.capitalcityfruit.com/


CHARTER COMMS: Sued for Improperly Charging Modem Lease Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a cable company
improperly charged monthly modem lease fees to customers who
bought Internet modems, a class claims in Federal Court.

Vicki Lucas said she bought a modem from Charter Communications as
part of her Internet services agreement on Dec. 15, 2008, and was
billed a one-time $49.99 fee the following month for the modem.

In January 2012, however, Charter allegedly sent Ms. Lucas a
letter stating that its audit revealed that she owed $7 a month
for a modem lease.

The Delaware company then told Ms. Lucas that it sent the letter
in error and that it would not charge her the fee, according to
the complaint in the Eastern District of Missouri.

"On her March 1, 2012 billing statement, however, plaintiff was
charged the $7 internet modem lease fee for the month of March and
an additional $7 for the preceding month, as well as $0.98 in
purported internet sales tax," the complaint states.  "Plaintiff
had never been billed for these items on any previous statement.
On each monthly statement thereafter, plaintiff has been billed
the $7 modem lease fee plus $0.49 internet sales tax."

Ms. Lucas claims Charter has not tried to stop the charges it
admits are wrongful.

She seeks to certify a class of all past and current Charter high-
speed Internet customers whom Charter improperly charged for lease
fees.

Charter must stop collecting the fees and pay punitive damages for
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and breach
of contract, according to the complaint.

The class is represented by:

          Christopher Hoffman, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY
          One U.S. Bank Plaza
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO  63101-1625
          Telephone: 314-241-4844
          E-mail: CHoffman@koreintillery.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Sued for Misclassifying Frontline Supervisors
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Conagra Foods makes frontline
supervisors work straight time for up to 70 hours a week, a worker
claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Eveyln Garrison claims Conagra misclassified her as
an "executive" and put her on salary and with a "non-discretionary
bonus," to duck labor laws.

Ms. Garrison claims the company systematically misclassifies
frontline supervisors at its Russellville plant, to stiff them for
overtime.

She estimates there are 50 to 100 members of the proposed class.

Ms. Garrison says she is not an "executive," as she is not the
head of a customarily recognized company subdivision -- her boss
was.  She did not plan or control budgets, maintain production
reports or sales records.

"Garrison did not have any control of or authority over any
employee's rate of pay or working hours," the complaint states.
"On average, Garrison worked approximately fifty (50) to seventy
(70) hours per week.  She did not receive any overtime
compensation."

Ms. Garrison says she is aware of no cases that support ConAgra's
nonpayment of overtime to low-level supervisors who do not have
the power to hire and fire.

"Despite being on notice of its violations, defendant chose to
continue to misclassify plaintiff and other members of the
proposed collective class and withhold overtime wages to them in
an effort to enhance its profits," the complaint states.
"Additionally, plaintiff and some members of the proposed
collective class from time to time complained to defendant about
the unlawfulness of defendant's manner of payment and policies
related to improper payment procedures."

She adds: "Plaintiff and some members of the proposed collective
class formerly had the power to fire prior to the period covered
by the relevant statute of limitations."

Ms. Garrison seeks lost wages and punitive damages for unjust
enrichment, willfulness and violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

She is represented by Jon Sanford of Russellville.  


DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Price-Fixing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that a federal judge in Vermont has
certified two classes of northeastern U.S. dairy farmers who
accuse Dairy Farmers of America, a national milk marketing
cooperative, of fixing prices for raw milk.  A related class
action in federal court in Tennessee recently produced a $145
million settlement, including $56 million in attorney fees.


DENNY'S: Workers File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two Denny's restaurants
stiffed workers for overtime, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


FANNIE MAE: Former Controller Dismissed From Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Leanne Spencer, the former
controller for Fannie Mae, was dismissed on Nov. 20 from a federal
securities class action against the mortgage giant, making her the
third former executive to win summary judgment since September.  A
federal judge found that the plaintiffs, former Fannie Mae
shareholders, failed to present enough evidence that Ms. Spencer
acted with the intent to deceive.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Ex-FDA Head to Testify in Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Intelligencer reports that against GlaxoSmithKline's
objections, a former head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
will be allowed to testify before a jury as an expert for the
plaintiffs in a class action against the company.  Third-party
purchasers and generic drugmakers allege that GSK violated
antitrust laws when it filed "sham" petitions to the FDA in an
effort to stall generic versions of its popular nasal spray,
Flonase, from entering the market.


GLOBAL AVIATION: Furloughed Pilots' Class Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Carla Craig dismissed the two complaints in the
adversary proceedings: Daniel Schroeder and Charles Martin, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Global Aviation Holdings, Inc., Defendant; and
Daniel Schroeder and Charles Martin, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. World
Airways, Inc., Defendant (Adv. Proc. Nos. 12-1227-CEC, 12-1235-CEC
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y.).

A copy of the Court's Nov. 26, 2012 Decision is available at
http://is.gd/x8rSUJfrom Leagle.com

The adversary proceedings were brought against Global Aviation
Holdings, Inc., and World Airways, Inc., under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections
2101-2109.  The Plaintiffs are airline pilots who were furloughed
by World after the bankruptcy filing.  The Plaintiffs claim that
World ordered a "mass layoff" without giving 60 days' notice as
required under the WARN Act.

The claim is premised on the assumption that the Kansas City,
Missouri airport, which they allege is World's pilot base,
constitutes a "single site of employment" for WARN Act purposes.
The Defendants point out that, while Kansas airport is used as a
notional "base" to calculate contractual commuting time for
pilots, World and its pilots have no physical connection with the
airport whatsoever. As such, the Defendants argue that as a matter
of law, Kansas airport is not a "single site of employment" at
which there could have been a "mass layoff" under the WARN Act.

                       About Global Aviation

Global Aviation Holdings Inc., based in Peachtree City, Ga., is
the parent company of North American Airlines and World Airways.
Global is the largest commercial provider of charter air
transportation for the U.S. military, and a major provider of
worldwide commercial global passenger and cargo air transportation
services.  North American Airlines, founded in 1989 and based in
Jamaica, N.Y., operates passenger charter flights using B757-200ER
and B767-300ER aircraft.  World Airways, founded in 1948 and based
in Peachtree City, Ga., operates cargo and passenger charter
flights using B747-400 and MD-11 aircraft.

Global Aviation, along with affiliates, filed Chapter 11 petitions
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 12-40783) on Feb. 5, 2012.

Global's lead counsel in connection with the restructuring is
Kirkland & Ellis LLP and its financial advisor is Rothschild.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the claims agent.

The Debtors disclosed $589.8 million in assets and $493.2 million
in liabilities as of Dec. 31, 2011.  Liabilities include $146.5
million on 14% first-lien secured notes and $98.1 million on a
second-lien term loan.  Wells Fargo Bank NA is agent for both.

Global said it will use Chapter 11 to shed 16 of 30 aircraft.
In addition, Global said it will use Chapter 11 to negotiate new
collective bargaining agreements with its unions and deal with
liabilities on multi-employer pension plans.

On Feb. 13, 2012, the U.S. Trustee for Region 2 appointed a seven
member official committee of unsecured creditors in the case.  The
Committee tapped Lowenstein Sandler PC as its counsel, and
Imperial Capital, LLC as its financial advisor.


GOOGLE: Gets Outside Support in Suit Over Book Digitization
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google is drawing
broad outside support in its 7-year-old copyright battle with the
Authors Guild.

The Web companies Yahoo, Pinterest and Electronic Arts last week
notified the federal court that they wish to file friend-of-the-
court briefs arguing that the Authors Guild shouldn't be able to
bring a class-action against Google.

Yahoo and the other companies say they "are interested in the
development of clear, consistent, and fair principles of law
involving intellectual property and related claims, especially in
this case with respect to class actions."

In addition, library organizations and a coalition of more than
100 professors filed separate briefs backing Google in the
litigation.

The dispute between Google and the Authors Guild dates to 2005,
when the Authors Guild alleged in court that Google infringed
copyright by scanning books from libraries and displaying snippets
of some of them in its search engine, in response to queries.

One of the many contested issues centers on whether the Authors
Guild is entitled to class-action status.  Google argues that
class-action status isn't appropriate, arguing that many
individual authors feel differently than the Authors Guild about
the book project.  The tech company says that a survey it
commissioned shows that many writers benefit from the project and
want it to continue.

Earlier this year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin rejected
Google's argument and said the case could move forward as a class-
action. Judge Chin said it wouldn't be fair to require writers to
sue Google individually.

Google appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit, which stayed all
trial court proceedings until the class-action question is
resolved.

The professors -- all authors themselves -- argue in their friend-
of-the-court brief that they disagree with the Authors Guild's
stance.  "Academic authors typically benefit from Google Books,
both because it makes their books more accessible to the public
than ever before and because they use Google Books in conducting
their own research," they argue.

A separate friend-of-the-court brief by the American Library
Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and
the Association of Research Libraries argues that certifying the
Authors Guild as a class-action could harm libraries generally.

"Class certification . . . would set a precedent that any mass
digitization initiative is subject to class action claims," they
argue.  "The mere threat of having to defend against such claims
creates a disincentive for libraries, universities, and others to
engage in socially beneficial digitization efforts, even where
there is a strong fair use justification," notes the ALA.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman International
Industries, Incorporated, and certain of the Company's officers in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the
"Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 26,
2007, and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period").  The original
complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the
"Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects.  The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co. ("KKR") and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners
("GSCP") was entered into, there would not have been a merger
agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the
price of the Company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the Class Period.  The Kim Plaintiff
alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was
not going to be completed, the price of the Company's common stock
declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of the Company's officers in the Court seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007, and
September 24, 2007.  The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint
are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim
complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton
complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its portable navigation device sales
forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January
14, 2008.  The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants
revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008, that shifts in
PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than
$1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in
the Company's share value and additional losses to the plaintiff
class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint").  The Consolidated
Complaint, which extends the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contends that Harman and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding the Company's financial condition
in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.  In particular, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG
radios, PNDs and the Company's capital expenditures.  The
Consolidated Complaint alleges that when Harman's true financial
condition became known to the market, the price of the Company's
common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of September 30, 2012, the case remained open with no new
developments, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss "Russell" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed a complaint on
December 7, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and an amended purported putative class
action complaint on June 2, 2008, against Harman International
Industries, Incorporated and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") and seeking, on behalf of all participants in
and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for
losses to the Savings Plan as well as injunctive relief,
imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief.  The amended complaint alleges that from April
26, 2007, to the present defendants failed to prudently and
loyally manage the Savings Plan's assets, thereby breaching their
fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan
to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding that the
stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the
Participants' retirement savings."  The amended complaint further
claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor
the Savings Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan
fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Savings Plan participants,
adverse facts regarding Harman and the Company's businesses and
prospects.  The Russell Plaintiff also contends that defendants
breached their duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve
the interests of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings
Plan with undivided loyalty.  As a result of these alleged
fiduciary breaches, the amended complaint asserts that the Savings
Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion
of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on
October 20, 2008.  The motion is now fully briefed.

As of September 30, 2012, the case remained open with no new
developments, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc. and other defendants are
seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On or about January 25, 2012, Health Management and certain of its
executive officers, one of whom is a director, were named as
defendants in an action entitled Milen Sapssov v. Health
Management Associates, Inc. et al., which was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  This action
purported to have been brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
July 27, 2009, through January 9, 2012, and alleged that Health
Management made false and misleading statements in certain public
disclosures regarding its business and financial results.  A
substantially similar purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Norfolk County Retirement System v. Health Management Associates,
Inc. et al., was filed against the same defendants on or about
February 2, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.  On April 30, 2012, the two class action
lawsuits were consolidated in the same court under the caption In
Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:12-cv-
00046-JES-DNF) and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as
lead plaintiffs.  On July 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of the same
class of stockholders as alleged in the prior complaints and
asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Among other things, the
plaintiffs claim that Health Management inflated its earnings by
engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that entailed
admitting patients to observation status when they should not have
been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they should have
been admitted to observation status.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit.  Because this lawsuit is in its early
stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or determine
the potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution.

Health Management Associates, Inc. -- http://www.hma.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the operation of general
acute care hospitals and other health care facilities in non-urban
communities in the United States.  Its hospitals provide services,
including general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics,
emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care,
coronary care, and pediatric services.  The Company also offers
outpatient services, such as one-day surgery, laboratory, x-ray,
respiratory therapy, cardiology, and physical therapy.  As of
December 31, 2011, the company operated 66 hospitals with a total
of 10,330 licensed beds in non-urban communities in Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Washington, and West Virginia.  The Company was founded in
1977 and is based in Naples, Florida.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued for Misrepresenting Fuel Economy Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai and Kia misrepresented the fuel economy ratings of their
automobiles, a class claims in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California - Santa Ana Division.

The case is Eric Olson v. Hyundai Motor; Hyundai Motor America;
Kia Motors; Kia Motors America.


JDA SOFTWARE: Sued Over Proposed New Mountain Capital Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that JDA Software Group is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to New Mountain
Capital, for $45 a share or $1.9 billion, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.


KATT WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Botched Stand-Up Show
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Brown, writing for International Business Times, reports that
comedian Katt Williams is being sued by a group of fans over an
allegedly botched stand-up show in Oakland, Calif.

The class-action lawsuit targets both Mr. Williams and his show's
promoter, Live Nation, for a performance taking place in Oakland
on Nov. 16, according to TMZ.  The lawsuit was filed by Brian
Herline on Nov. 21.

According to the suit, Mr. Williams was onstage for all of 10
minutes before the comedian stormed offstage.  Reportedly,
Mr. Williams delivered almost no comedic material during that
time, but instead "confronted a heckler, took his clothes off, and
attempted to fight at least three audience members."

Apparently, fans were extremely disappointed by the
"nonperformance," which explains the legal action being taken
against Mr. Williams.  In recent years, Mr. Williams has become
known for bizarre behavior at his stand-up shows.

In August of last year, Mr. Williams reportedly launched a tirade
against an audience member of Mexican descent, at one point
yelling, "So if you love Mexico, bitch, get the f--k over there!"
Mr. Williams refused to apologize for the incident, citing his
patriotism and love of America as a defense for his actions.

This lawsuit is not the first bit of legal trouble to come
Mr. Williams' way this month.  Two days before the botched stand-
up performance, the comedian was arrested on suspicion of battery
in Oakland after allegedly getting into a fight at a club and
hitting a man over the head with a glass bottle, as noted by TMZ.


KMART: Class Action Trial Over "Suitable Seating" Opened
--------------------------------------------------------
The Recorder reports that a California class action trial that
opened on Nov. 13 against Kmart for not providing seats to
cashiers is part of a wave of "suitable seating" lawsuits that
could result in billions of dollars in civil penalties.  The judge
is using the trial, the first in any seating case, to test the
merits of plaintiffs' claims and the manageability of certifying a
statewide case.

According to The Recorder, since 2009, California courts have
grappled with a wave of lawsuits targeting large retailers,
groceries and banks for not providing seats to clerks and
cashiers.  The "suitable seating" cases have yielded conflicting
rulings on class certification and motions for summary judgment.
The first trial in a seating class action started in federal court
in San Francisco.


LEGENDARY BAKING: Recalls 726 Pcs. of 9-Inch Apple Lattice Pies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legendary Baking of Denver, Colorado, is recalling 726 Private
Selection 9-Inch pies labeled as "Apple Lattice" with a UPC of
1111060195 and Lot Code 12296 (located on side of aluminum pie
tie, because the pies may contain undeclared EGGS.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to EGGS may run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Private Selection 9-Inch pies labeled as "Apple Lattice" were
distributed to Quality Food Centers (QFC) in Washington State and
Oregon only, with sell by dates of November 4 through
November 26, 2012.

The 9-Inch pies are sealed in a brown cardboard box with a see-
through plastic label and sold as a fresh item at the consumer
level.  There have been no illnesses reported to date.

The recalling firm initiated the recall after it was discovered
that product containing EGG was distributed in packaging that may
not comply with applicable regulations regarding disclosure of EGG
as an ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased pies labeled as Private Selection 9-
Inch Apple Lattice may return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-855-358-8888 Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Central
Standard Time.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Deloitte Dismissed From Audit Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that from 2004 to 2010, Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu gave clean audit opinions to Longtop Financial
Technologies, the U.S.-listed Chinese software company that
collapsed in 2011 from a massive accounting scandal.  On
November 14, a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed the auditor
from a securities class action brought on behalf of Longtop's
disgruntled U.S. investors.


MAINE: State Retirees' Suit Obtains Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------
Judy Harrison, writing for BDN Maine, reports that a federal judge
has granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by Maine
retirees over the elimination in 2011 of cost-of-living
adjustments for Maine state employee retirement benefits.

The ruling, issued on Nov. 21 by U.S. District Judge George
Singal, clears the way for about 28,000 retired teachers, Maine
State Police troopers and state employees to have their day in
court.

The next step in the case will be for Judge Singal to decide two
legal issues in the case -- whether the laws governing cost-of-
living increases prior to a change in the law last year
constituted a contract and, if so, whether the 2011 legislation
constituted an "impairment" of that contract, according to court
documents.

Lawyers are expected to file motions on the questions by the end
of March.  A date for oral arguments has not been set.

The lawsuit was filed in February in U.S. District Court in Bangor
after the budget passed by the Legislature the previous year
froze, then capped at 3 percent cost-of-living increases for state
employees.

Originally, the 15,000-member Maine Association of Retirees sued
the Maine Public Employees Retirement System.  In October, U.S.
District Court Judge Nancy Torresen, who on Nov. 19 recused
herself from the case, allowed three state employee unions --
Maine State Employees Association, Maine Education Association and
Maine State Troopers Association -- to join the case.

Judge Torresen did not give a reason for her recusal but she
worked from 1994 to 2001 for the Maine attorney general's office,
according to her biography posted on the Maine U.S. District Court
Web site.


MANPOWER INC: Still Awaits Final Okay of Vacation Pay Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manpower Inc. is still awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit regarding its vacation pay
policies in Illinois, according to the Company's November 2, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

For the nine months ended September 30, 2012, the Company recorded
legal costs of $10 million in the U.S. for various legal matters,
the majority of which was related to the Company's entry into a
settlement agreement in connection with a purported class action
lawsuit involving allegations regarding the Company's vacation pay
policies in Illinois.  Under the settlement agreement, which is
still subject to final court approval, the Company agreed to pay
$8 million plus certain related taxes and administrative fees.
The Company maintains that its vacation pay policies were
appropriate and it admits no liability or wrongdoing, but the
Company believes that settlement is in its best interest to avoid
the costs and disruption of ongoing litigation.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeal From Atty. Fee Ruling Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment over attorney's fees entered in
favor of Merge Healthcare Incorporated remains pending, according
to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In January 2010, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts,
in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s (AMICAS) proposed acquisition by
a third party.  A second similar action was filed in the same
Court in February 2010 and consolidated with the first action.  In
March 2010, because AMICAS had terminated its previously executed
merger agreement and agreed to be acquired by the Company, the
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims as moot.  Subsequently,
counsel for the plaintiffs filed an application for approximately
$5,000 of attorneys' fees for its work on this case, which fee
petition AMICAS opposed.  The Company retained litigation counsel
to defend against the fee petition.  On December 4, 2010, the
court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3,200 in attorneys' fees
and costs.  AMICAS has appealed this judgment.  The Company
previously tendered the defense in this matter to its appropriate
insurers, which provided coverage against the claims asserted
against AMICAS.  After receipt of the court's attorneys' fee award
decision, the insurer denied policy coverage for approximately
$2,500 of the fee award.  The Company does not believe that the
insurer's denial has merit and has retained counsel to contest it.

On June 6, 2011, the insurer filed an action against AMICAS and
Merge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
seeking a declaration that it is not responsible for the $2,500
portion of the judgment rendered on December 4, 2010, by the
Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.  Merge filed a
counterclaim seeking a declaration that the insurer must pay the
full amount of the Superior Court's fee award, plus additional
damages.  On April 30, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois
federal court ruled in favor of the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment.  The court ordered the insurer to pay the Massachusetts
court judgment plus interest.  The insurer has appealed that
court's ruling.

The Company continues to vigorously assert all of its rights under
its applicable insurance policies, which it believes cover the
claims and expenses incurred by AMICAS or the Company in
connection with the fee award.  The Company believes that the
likelihood of a loss in excess of the amount of its recorded
liability is remote.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge Healthcare Incorporated
-- http://www.merge.com/-- provides healthcare information
technology solutions in the United States and internationally.
Its software solutions automate healthcare data and diagnostic
workflow to create an electronic record of the patient experience.


MF GLOBAL: PwC and CME Group Added as Defendants in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that plaintiffs' lawyers accusing the
bankrupt securities firm MF Global of bilking customers out of
$1.6 billion have expanded their civil suit with new claims
against the auditing giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.  On Nov. 5 the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint,
adding both PwC and the futures and derivatives exchange company
CME Group as defendants.


MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC: Faces Class Action Over High Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that major
insurers have turned the nonprofit Michigan Catastrophic Claims
Association into a multibillion-dollar "political tool" to keep
premiums high and "advance the insurance industry agenda of
passing legislation capping no-fault benefits," a class action
claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff William Todorovich sued the Michigan Catastrophic
Claims Association, its director Gloria Freeland, Michigan Office
of Financial and Insurance Regulation Commissioner Kevin Clinton,
and five insurance companies: Auto Club Insurance Association,
Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Citizens Insurance Co. of America,
Farmers Insurance and State Farm.

The Michigan No-Fault Insurance Act of 1976 provides unlimited
medical care for catastrophic injuries related to a car accident,
according to the complaint.  The Act established the nonprofit
Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA), as a reinsurer
for auto insurance companies.

The Act provides that the MCCA charge a "total premium sufficient
to cover the expected losses and expenses of the association which
the association will likely incur during the period the premium is
applicable," according to the complaint.

Mr. Todorovich says he has paid a yearly premium to the MCCA for
more than 30 years.  He says: "(T)he MCCA was never established to
allow for this unregulated, private organization to accumulate
billions of dollars in excess 'reserves' and, instead of
fulfilling its statutory purpose, the MCCA has become both a
political tool using its unregulated power to set the MCCA premium
at unnecessarily high levels in order to advance the insurance
industry agenda of passing legislation capping no-fault benefits.
As will become clear from this complaint, the passing of such
legislation will benefit the insurance industry as a whole, but
mostly the five (5) member insurers comprising the Board of
Directors of the MCCA and will allow the MCCA to 'distribute' the
'excess reserves', not to the members of the public who paid them,
but to the member insurance companies.

"Since its inception on July 1, 1978 through June 30, 2011, the
MCCA has paid on a total of 13,522 open claims and over the 33
years encompassed in the MCCA's own reporting, has paid a
cumulative total of $8,992,396,235.00.

"Despite having paid less than 9 billion dollars over the 33 year
existence of the MCCA, at the time of the filing of this
complaint, the 'excess reserves' sitting in the MCCA fund exceed
fourteen billion ($14,000,000,000.00) dollars, or approximately
$1700.00 for every 'plated' vehicle in the State of Michigan.  In
actuality, the per-insured vehicle will be much, much higher
because as the MCCA unnecessarily increases the cost of insurance,
the number of uninsured drivers similarly increases.

"To illustrate the unjustifiable hoarding of over 14 billion
dollars, the members of the public may recall when the Governor
John Engler determined in 1998 the MCCA surplus of a mere $2.9
billion dollars was excessive and coerced the MCCA into returning
approximately '$180 to each vehicle owner and to limit future
assessments.'"

The MCCA Board of Directors is comprised of representatives of the
five largest insurance companies in Michigan and its board
meetings are closed to the public, Mr. Todorovich says.

"Through a long term scheme, which is kept secret from the public,
defendants have conspired to abuse their powers as members of the
Board of Directors by 1) using fallacious accounting methods to
overstate estimated losses over the life of claims; 2) failed to
use investment income as a method of reducing or offsetting the
premium ultimately assessed against members of the driving public;
[and] 3) used the increased and falsely inflated loss estimates to
shift the cost of insurance to the MCCA assessment in an effort to
advance the insurance industries political agenda of eliminating
unlimited medical benefits," Mr. Todorovich claims.

He claims that "the public's willingness to accept reductions in
no-fault benefits is tied directly to the amount of money the
public is required to pay in order to comply with the compulsory
requirement that each vehicle must be covered by a policy of no-
fault insurance.

"Thus, the higher the rate to insure a vehicle in Michigan, the
more likely the public is willing to bend to the demands of the
insurance industry and allow reductions in benefits in the futile
hope of receiving some form of rate relief."

Mr. Todorovich adds: "In short, the MCCA continues to 'cook the
books' relying upon implausible and impossible scenarios to
justify continuously increasing its annual assessment when in
reality a reduction in the assessment would be appropriate.  The
MCCA's unrelenting annual increase in the MCCA assessment is
designed to conceal the true agenda of the MCCA which is to force
a financially burdened electorate to support elimination of the
best auto insurance system in the nation, thereby allowing the
member insurance companies to 'loot' the excess reserves in the
fund (i.e. the fourteen billion ($14,000,000,000.00) dollars) for
the greedy corporate purposes of the insurance companies
comprising the board of directors."

Mr. Todorovich wants the MCCA premium reduced and punitive damages
for fraud and unjust enrichment.

He is represented by Craig Romanzi with Romanzi Atnip in
Waterford, Mich.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Suits Over Polyurethane Foam Products Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits relating to polyurethane foam products, according to the
Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
29, 2012.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  Mohawk has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints, the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers.  All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations.  In April 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct
purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the
claims brought by the indirect purchasers.  On July 19, 2011, the
Court issued a written opinion denying all defendants' motions to
dismiss.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada, and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages.  The Company
denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously
defend itself.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses that are reasonably estimable.  These
contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the
Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any,
in excess of amounts accrued.  The Company does not believe that
the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition but could have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or
liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a
supplier of flooring for both residential and commercial
applications.  Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,
ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs.  These
products are marketed under the premier brands in the industry,
which include Mohawk, Karastan, Lees, Bigelow, Dal-Tile, American
Olean, Unilin and Quick Step.  Mohawk's unique merchandising and
marketing assist the Company's customers in creating the
consumers' dream.  Mohawk provides a premium level of service with
its own trucking fleet and local distribution.  The Company is
headquartered in Calhoun, Georgia.


NEWMAN'S OWN: Recalls 16-Ounce Lite Honey Mustard Dressing
----------------------------------------------------------
Newman's Own, Inc. announced the voluntary recall of Newman's Own
Lite Honey Mustard Dressing because it contains undeclared milk.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume the Newman's Own Lite Honey Mustard Dressing with the
affected time code.  No other Newman's Own products or flavors are
impacted.

The products are sold in retail stores in the Eastern to
Midwestern US.  The affected packages are 16 fl. oz. bottles of
Newman's Own Lite Honey Mustard Dressing that have a sell-by date
of 16 OCT 13 M with a time stamp from 12:47 - 13:30 and UPC code
of 0 20662 00292 1.  The sell-by date is located on the neck label
of the bottle.  Only the products with time codes from 12:47 to
13:30 are affected.  A picture of the recalled products is
available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm329328.htm

No complaint of illness has been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that Newman's Own
Lite Honey Mustard Dressing was labeled with an incorrect back
label that did not list the allergen milk.  Consumers with any
product noted above can return the product to retailer for a full
refund, or contact Newman's Own, Inc.


PEET'S COFFEE: Files Stipulation of Settlement with Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc., in a November 2, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, filed a
supplement to its prior notice of settlement of a consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit to post a copy of the stipulation
of settlement.

As previously reported, on October 5, 2012, the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by the Honorable Wynn
S. Carvill in Department 21 of that Court, approved an order
("Order") preliminarily approving the settlement of the
consolidated shareholder class action in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda that had challenged the
consummation of the proposed transaction described in the July 23,
2012 Agreement and Plan of Merger among Peet's Coffee and Tea,
Inc. ("Peet's"), JAB Holdings ("JAB") and Panther Merger Co.
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub would merge with
Peet's and holders of Peet's common stock would receive $73.50 in
cash per share of Peet's common stock.

Attached to the Order was the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing, which the Court
also approved.

                    Background of the Action

On July 24, 2012, Schufman, a holder of Peet's common stock, filed
a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Alameda (the "Court") captioned
Schufman v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al, Case No. RG12-640529
(the "Shufman Action"), on behalf of himself and all holders of
Peet's common stock, except for Defendants and their affiliates,
against Peet's, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), JAB, and the
Merger Sub challenging the Proposed Transaction and asserting
various claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 25, 26, and 27, 2012, additional holders of Peet's common
stock filed putative class action complaints in the Court,
captioned, respectively, Light v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al,
Case No. RG12-640783; Robertson v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et
al, Case No. RG12-640956; Weir v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al,
Case No. RG12-641259; and Pearson v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. et
al, Case No. RG12-641418 on behalf of themselves and all Peet's
shareholders, except for Defendants and their affiliates, against
Defendants, challenging the Proposed Transaction and asserting
various claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty (respectively, the "Light,"
"Robertson," "Weir," and "Pearson" actions).

On August 9, 2012, Peet's filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form
14A (the "Proxy") with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
wherein it was noted that the Board unanimously approved the
Merger Agreement and, further, recommended that the shareholders
vote to approve the Proposed Transaction.

On August 16, 2012, Plaintiff in the Robertson Action filed a
First Amended Shareholder's Class Action Complaint for Breach of
Fiduciary Duty (the "Robertson Amended Complaint"), adding certain
claims based on disclosures in the definitive proxy statement.

On August 27, 2012, Peet's and the Individual Defendants filed an
answer (the "Answer") to the Robertson Amended Complaint (filed in
the Lead Case) and JAB and Merger Sub also demurred to the
Robertson Amended Complaint (the "Demurrer"), which Demurrer the
Court later set for hearing on October 3, 2012.

On August 28, 2012, the Court entered an order providing for an
October 3, 2012, hearing for Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for
preliminary injunction, and a briefing schedule for that motion.

On August 28, 2012, the "Schufman," "Light," "Robertson," "Weir,"
and "Pearson" actions were consolidated before the Court under the
lead case number RG12-640529 (the "Lead Case" or the "Action") and
Co-Lead Counsel were appointed in the Action (the "Consolidation
Order").  Pursuant to the Consolidation Order, the Robertson
Amended Complaint was deemed the operative complaint in the
consolidated Action.

On September 11, 2012, the First Amended Class Action Complaint
for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the "Amended Complaint") was re-
filed in the Lead Case.  On September 12, 2012, Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the Demurrer.

Between August 31, 2012, and September 7, 2012, and in
anticipation of Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for preliminary
injunction, Defendants provided a substantial amount of document
discovery to Plaintiffs (which production was made subject to the
entry of an appropriate confidentiality order), including copies
of Board minutes, presentation materials, emails, and financial
forecasts.

In furtherance of the anticipated motion for preliminary
injunction, Plaintiffs took the depositions of Valette, Chairman
of Peet's Board, on September 10, 2012; O'Dea, Peet's President
and Chief Executive Officer, on September 12, 2012; and Jeffery
Schackner, a representative of Peet's financial advisor Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. ("Citigroup") on September 12, 2012.

After Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' Counsel, and Plaintiffs' financial
expert had substantially reviewed and analyzed the facts as
revealed through discovery, Plaintiffs and Defendants, through
their respective counsel and by engaging in arm's-length
negotiations, reached an agreement to settle the Actions on the
terms reflected in a memorandum of understanding ("MOU").

On September 19, 2012, the Settling Parties entered into the MOU
binding the Settling Parties to an agreement in principle
providing for the full settlement of the Action on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the MOU, including the
obligation to issue specific supplemental disclosures (the
"Supplemental Disclosures") and the obligations to negotiate in
good faith, execute, and present the Proposed Settlement to the
Court for approval.  Defendants acknowledge that the Supplemental
Disclosures were made solely as a result of the efforts of
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Action, and Plaintiffs
believe that the Supplemental Disclosures provide a material
benefit to the proposed Settlement Class.

On September 20, 2012, Peet's filed an Amended Preliminary Proxy
with the SEC which included (among other amendments) the
Supplemental Disclosures relating to the Proposed Transaction
resulting from the prosecution of the Action, and in particular
the claims raised by Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint, which
provided stockholders with additional information concerning the
Proposed Transaction well in advance of the Stockholder Vote.

Plaintiffs' Counsel, in consultation with their financial expert,
have reviewed the facts revealed through discovery, and have
concluded that the Supplemental Disclosures provide Peet's
shareholders with a substantially improved opportunity to cast a
fully-informed vote on the Proposed Transaction, and that the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement Class.  All Settling Parties recognize the time and
expense that would be incurred by further litigation, the
uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and that the interests
of the Settling Parties and the Settlement Class would best be
served by a settlement of the Action, including the release of the
Released Claims.  Each Defendant denies having committed any
violation of law or breach of fiduciary duty, including a breach
of any duty to Peet's stockholders or the proposed Settlement
Class, and maintain that they have committed no disclosure
violations or any breach of duty whatsoever in connection with the
Transaction or any public disclosures.  There has been no
admission or finding of facts or liability by or against any
Defendant and nothing herein should be construed as such.

On September 19, 2012, a purported Peet's shareholder filed a
complaint captioned St. Louis Police Retirement System v. Peet's
Coffee & Tea, Inc. et al Case No. RG12-648444 (the "St. Louis
Action") alleging substantially similar claims as the Amended
Complaint.  Accordingly, the Settling Parties agree that the St.
Louis Action is subject to the Consolidation Order, and that the
claims provided in the St. Louis Action are included within the
Released Claims herein.  As of the date the Stipulation was
signed, the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action filed a request for
dismissal.  On October 3, 2012, the Court determined to grant the
request for dismissal filed by the plaintiff in the St. Louis
Action.

In addition to the Action, on and after August 1, 2012, certain
purported holders of Peet's common stock commenced shareholder
class actions relating to the Proposed Transaction in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington for King County (the "Washington
Actions").  The Washington Actions include litigation commenced by
the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action.  The Washington Actions
have been consolidated, and the plaintiff in the St. Louis Action
pending before this Court has been appointed Lead Plaintiff in the
Washington Actions.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated Washington
Actions have not yet served the summons and complaint in those
actions on all defendants named therein.  Defendants have moved to
dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the Washington Actions in
deference to this Action.  To the extent plaintiffs in the
Washington Actions are Settlement Class Members, they will receive
notice of the Proposed Settlement, as provided.  The Settling
Parties agree that the claims asserted in the Washington Action
are included in the Released Claims.


PITNEY BOWES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "NECA-IBEW" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed by NECA-IBEW
Health & Welfare Fund, according to the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In October 2009, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare
Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the Company
during the period between July 30, 2007, and October 29, 2007,
alleging that the Company, in essence, missed two financial
projections.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September
2010.  After briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed, the
plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint on February 17, 2012.
The Company has moved to dismiss this new amended complaint.

The Company says it expects to prevail in this legal action;
however, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be
no assurance in this regard.  If the plaintiffs do prevail, the
results may have a material effect on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  Based upon the
Company's current understanding of the facts and applicable laws,
it does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that any
loss has been incurred.


PLAINSCAPITAL CORP: FSC Still Named Co-Conspirator in Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2006, First Southwest Company ("FSC"), an indirect
subsidiary of PlainsCapital Corporation, received subpoenas from
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States
Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with an
investigation of possible antitrust and securities law violations,
including bid-rigging, in the procurement of guaranteed investment
contracts and other investment products for the reinvestment of
bond proceeds by municipalities.  The investigation is industry-
wide and includes approximately 30 or more firms, including some
of the largest U.S. investment firms.

As a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into industry-wide
practices, FSC was initially named as a co-defendant in cases
filed in several different federal courts by various state and
local governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities and a
similar set of lawsuits filed by various California local
governmental entities suing on behalf of themselves and a
purported class of similarly situated governmental entities.  All
claims asserted against FSC in these purported class actions were
subsequently dismissed.  However, the plaintiffs in these
purported class actions have filed amended complaints against
other entities, and FSC is identified in these complaints not as a
defendant, but as an alleged co-conspirator with the named
defendants.

Additionally, as a result of these SEC and DOJ investigations into
industry-wide practices, FSC has been named as a defendant in 20
individual lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been brought by several
California public entities and two New York non-profit
corporations that do not seek to certify a class.  The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred these cases to
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.
The California plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and the California Cartwright Act.  The New York
plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
the New York Donnelly Act.  The allegations against FSC are very
limited in scope.  FSC has filed answers in each of the twenty
lawsuits denying the allegations and asserting several affirmative
defenses.  FSC says it intends to defend itself vigorously in
these individual actions.  The relief sought is unspecified
monetary damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Dallas, Texas-based PlainsCapital Corporation --
http://plainscapital.com/-- is founded by Chairman and CEO Alan
B. White, whose family of companies includes PlainsCapital Bank,
PrimeLending and FirstSouthwest.  It offers a diverse range of
financial services.


SANDISK CORP: Ritz Camera Gets Favorable Ruling in Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
The Litigation Daily reports that the Federal Circuit sided with
Ritz Camera on Nov. 20 in an unusual appeal brought by SanDisk
Corp., which is fighting an antitrust class action involving the
flash memory market.  The panel ruled that Ritz can pursue its
case under a 47-year-old U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended
Sherman Act liability to companies that enforce patents procured
by fraud.


SMITH MICRO: Court OK'd Deal to Dismiss Securities Suit in Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
approved in August 2012 Smith Micro Software, Inc.'s stipulation
to dismiss a purported stockholder class action lawsuit initiated
in California, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 29, 2011, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the Company and
certain of its current officers on behalf of certain purchasers of
its common stock.  The complaint was brought as a purported
stockholder class action, and, in general, included allegations
that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects and
financial results, thereby artificially inflating the price of its
common stock.  The plaintiff sought unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint and, on May 21, 2012, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and
afforded plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  Co-lead
plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint, and instead agreed
to dismiss the action with prejudice.  On July 19, 2012, the
parties stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, with each
side to bear its own attorney's fees and costs.  The stipulation
fully, finally and forever releases defendants from any and all
claims asserted by co-lead plaintiffs in the federal class action.
The Court entered the stipulation into order on August 16, 2012.


STARBUCKS CORP: Owes $14.1 Mil. to Baristas in Tip-Sharing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Starbucks Corp. owes
baristas in Massachusetts $14.1 million for a policy that gave
shift supervisors a share of the tips, the First Circuit has
ruled, rejecting an argument that the class is improper because
more than 450 former baristas became shift supervisors during the
class period.  Last month, the Second Circuit certified questions
in two similar cases.


STATE STREET: Continues to Defend Suits Over Forex Transactions
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits over foreign exchange transactions, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

The Company offers indirect foreign exchange services such as
those it offers to the California pension plans to a broad range
of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally.  The Company
has responded and is responding to information requests from a
number of clients concerning its indirect foreign exchange rates.
In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.  Two other putative class
actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging
various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with the
Company that executed indirect foreign exchange transactions with
State Street from 1998 onward.  The complaints allege that State
Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates
for indirect foreign exchange transactions with State Street.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and
other equitable relief.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Defends Suits Filed by TAG Investment Mgmt. Clients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation is defending a class action lawsuit
brought by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands,
Inc., according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

State Street is named as a defendant in a series of related
complaints by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands,
Inc., or TAG, who hold custodial accounts with State Street.  The
complaints, collectively, allege claims for breach of contract,
breach of implied in fact contract, gross negligence, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting fraud and violation of Massachusetts consumer
protection statutes in connection with certain assets managed by
TAG and custodied with State Street.  The complaints include a
putative class action, which alleges that the class has suffered
tens of millions of dollars in damages, and six individual
complaints, which seek unspecified damages.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: Four Shareholder Suits Remain Pending in Boston
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four shareholder lawsuits against State Street Corporation remain
pending in Boston, Massachusetts, according to the Company's
November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Four shareholder-related complaints are currently pending in
federal court in Boston.  One complaint purports to be a class
action on behalf of State Street shareholders.  A second complaint
is a purported shareholder derivative action on behalf of State
Street.  The two other complaints purport to be class actions on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the State Street
Salary Savings Program who invested in the program's State Street
common stock investment option.  The complaints variously allege
violations of the federal securities laws, common law and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in
connection with the Company's foreign exchange trading business,
its investment securities portfolio and its asset-backed
commercial paper conduit program.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STATE STREET: To Appeal Class Certification Order in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012, that it intends to appeal an
order certifying a class in the lawsuit filed by investors in
unregistered SSgA-managed collective trust funds alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").

The Company is currently defending a putative class action
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") by investors in unregistered collective trust
funds managed by State Street Global Advisors, or SSgA, which
challenges the division of the Company's securities lending-
related revenue between those funds and State Street in its role
as lending agent.  The action alleges, among other things, that
State Street breached its fiduciary duty to investors in those
funds.  The plaintiff contends that other State Street agency
lending clients received more favorable fee splits than did the
SSgA lending funds.  In August 2012, the Court certified a class
consisting of ERISA plans that invested in the SSgA lending funds
between April 2004 and the present.  The Company says it intends
to appeal this decision.

State Street Corporation -- http://www.statestreet.com/-- a
financial holding company, provides various financial products and
services to institutional investors worldwide.  It was founded in
1832 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.  The Company
offers investment servicing and investment management services.


STEWART INFORMATION: Awaits Affirmation of Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of claims in antitrust class action lawsuits
commenced in New York, Texas, Ohio, Delaware, and New Jersey have
been affirmed and Stewart Information Services Corporation is
awaiting affirmation of the dismissal of claims in Arkansas,
California, Florida, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, according to
the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2012.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title
insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and
licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.  All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  To date, 78 such complaints have been filed,
each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its
affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the
subject states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of July 25, 2012, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed).  The
dismissals in New York and Texas have been affirmed by the United
States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits,
respectively, and on October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme
Court denied the plaintiffs' petitions for review of those
decisions.  The United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit
has affirmed the dismissal of the Ohio complaints, the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the dismissals of the
Delaware and New Jersey complaints, and the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the RESPA claims
in New York.

Although the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions,
it is vigorously defending itself against the allegations and does
not believe that the outcome will materially affect its
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


SUNPOWER CORP: Still Defends Consolidated Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against SunPower
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through
November 16, 2009.  The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and will vigorously defend itself in these matters.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010.

The court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend
on March 1, 2011. An amended complaint was filed on
April 18, 2011.  The amended complaint added two former employees
as defendants.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on May 23, 2011.  The motions to dismiss the amended
complaint were heard by the court on August 11, 2011.  On December
19, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions
to dismiss, dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought
against the two newly added former employees.

No further updates were reported in the Company's November 2,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

The Company says it is currently unable to determine if the
resolution of these matters will have an adverse effect on its
financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

Based in San Jose, California, SunPower Corporation --
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/-- an integrated solar products and
services company, designs, manufactures, and delivers solar
electric systems for residential, commercial, and utility-scale
power plant customers worldwide.  It operates in two segments,
Utility and Power Plants, and Residential and Commercial.
SunPower Corporation is a subsidiary of Total Gas & Power USA,
SAS.


TD BANK: Judge Allows Class Action Over Layoffs to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Law Journal reports that former TD Bank employees can
continue with their putative class action alleging that a
reduction in work force disproportionately affected older workers
in violation of New Jersey law.  A federal judge has found that
the plaintiffs stated a prima facie case by identifying 18 under-
40 employees who were retained while many over age 40 allegedly
were shown the door.


VODAFONE GHANA: Customers Mull Suit Over Capped Broadband Package
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GhanaWeb reports that Vodafone Ghana has since two months ago
increased the price of its domestic fixed broadband package from
GHC45 to GHC65 and announced a cap of 15GB for the 30-day period
beginning November 28, 2012, but some customers are angry about
the move and could go to court.

The customers, led by one Francis Adanku, have opened a dedicated
Facebook account to invite all aggrieved customers to sign on to a
protest, which could become a class action against Vodafone for
putting a cap on the domestic monthly package after increasing the
price by almost 50%.

The Facebook account captioned "Stop Vodafone from Capping
Broadband" has so far attracted some 2,280 members, out of which
387 have signed on to the class action so far.

Mr. Adanku told Adom News they are going to get as many aggrieved
customers as possible to sign on to the protest and they will then
petition the industry regulator, National Communication Authority
(NCA), and Ministry of Communication (MOC) to prevail upon
Vodafone to stop the announced cap.

He said if that fails, other options, which may include legal
action could be considered.

Some of Vodafone FBB customers had earlier on written Adom News
saying they simply cannot understand why the package was GHC45
when it was uncapped, but it has rather been capped after the
price increased to GHC65.

One of the customers said "I consume at least 30GB a month for
downloads alone, plus more for live streaming and browsing -- I do
not have any qualms about the price increase because the download
speeds is now better -- but why place a limit on how much data I
can consume after increasing the price."

Meanwhile, on Facebook, Mr. Adanku wrote that "The new packages
starting from 15GB valid for 30days @ 65Ghc from the previous
45Ghc for unlimited data will make it extremely difficult to
freely use services such as Youtube, Skype, Facebook, Uploading of
pictures and downloading of programs, movies, pictures and
attachments."

He said that would negatively affect and widen the digital divide
which all Ghanaians have been working so hard to completely
eliminate.

He also noted that Vodafone is selling 60GB for GHC200 as business
package, which Mr. Adanku argued is too high because "in the UK
and Italy, 16megabits/sec unlimited data is less than 40euros
(GHC96.04).  Vodafone says it is doing up to 20megabits/sec but in
practice it is 4-5megabit/sec.

Mr. Adanku said customers have had to resort to open protest
because when they post questions and concerns about the cap and
increased prices on Vodafone's Facebook page, the company deletes
them and refuses to offer any responses.

He said they fear that if Vodafone is allowed to implement the
capped system on November 28, 2012, it would be difficult to
reverse, so they would push the regulator and government to
intervene before then.

                  Vodafone Plays the Fairness Card

But in an brief interaction with senior journalists recently, the
Vodafone Ghana CEO Kyle Whitehill said the customers who are
complaining about the cap and increased prices are the one per
cent of customers who consume 99% of available capacity and pay as
little as what everybody else pays.

He said an overwhelming majority (more than 80%) of Vodafone's
domestic customers consistently consume less than 10GB of data a
month, but the experience of those overwhelming majority of
customers, in terms of internet speeds, is adversely affected by
those who consume huge capacities, even though they are all paying
the same amount.

Mr. Whitehill explained that over the past two and half years,
Vodafone's fixed broadband customers have increased from 5,000 to
79,000 and even though the company has invested GHC50 million to
improve the network to accommodate them all, it has also become
necessary to manage the system efficiently to ensure that every
customer got great experience.

"The cap is therefore a strategy deployed to ensure efficient
management of the system by reducing the number of people who
consume high capacities for less so that more capacity would be
freed to boost the experience of the overwhelming majority," he
said.

Mr. Whitehill also explained that even though Vodafone has placed
a 15GB cap on the domestic package, its offers are still the most
competitive on the market, and the company still offers the
highest speeds on the market, which is actually one of the fastest
in the world.

Vodafone has often been accused of playing player and referee, and
adopting practices aimed at killing Internet Service Providers
(ISP) who buy bandwidth from Vodafone, just so it could capture
their customers unto the Vodafone network.

The accusers now argue that Vodafone used the uncapped packages at
GHC45 as bait to attract the customers of other ISPs unto the
Vodafone network, and are now in the line to squeeze them with the
capped package at an increased price.

Indeed, the Vodafone Ghana CEO recently stated ISPs in Ghana are
no more competitive because they are using obsolete and expensive
technology to offer expensive service, so they could not blame
Vodafone for their gradual loss of business, a position that
Director of Regulatory Administration at the NCA, Joshua Peprah
shares.

Meanwhile, if things remain as they are now, without the swift
intervention of the regulator and government, beginning November
28, 2012, all new customers on domestic package of Vodafone's FBB
would have a 15GB cap on their monthly packages, and existing
customers would also be affected by the cap from December 16,
2012.


VOLKSWAGEN: Sued Over Defective Tiptronic Transmissions
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Volkswagen 2003-07 New
Beetles came with defective Tiptronic transmissions which VW
refuses to repair satisfactorily, a class action claims in Federal
Court.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 12 Cert. Hearing in Anda Suit Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion seeking certification of a class in a
lawsuit against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s subsidiary alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act has been set
for December 12, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al.
v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of
Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257).  In April 2008, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the
Company, as the defendant.  The amended complaint alleges that by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated
the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.  The TCPA allows recovery of minimum
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if
the violations are found to be willful.  The complaint seeks to
assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other
similarly situated third parties.  In April 2008, Anda filed an
answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations.  In
November 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion to expand the
proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda
lacked evidence of express permission or an established business
relationship to "All persons who on or after four years prior to
the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages
advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of
Defendant."  In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint further expanding the definition and scope of
the proposed class of plaintiffs.  On December 2, 2010, Anda filed
a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on
behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed
to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay
the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda's petition to the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  On April 11, 2011, the
court denied the motion.  On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed
their motion seeking certification of a class of entities with
Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period
January 2004 through January 2008.  The motion has been briefed
and is currently scheduled for hearing on December 12, 2012.  No
trial date has been set in the matter.

On May 1, 2012, an additional putative class action was filed on
behalf of Physicians Healthsource, Inc., alleging violations of
the TCPA on behalf of recipients of Anda advertising faxes in the
United States but outside of Missouri (Physicians Healthsource
Inc. v. Anda Inc. United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, 12 CV 60798).  On July 10, 2012, Anda filed
its answer and affirmative defenses.  The matter is in its
preliminary stages and no trial date has been set.

Several issues raised in plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the Medical West matter are currently under
consideration in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an
unrelated case to which Anda is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No.
11-1460.  Nack concerns whether there is a private right of action
for failing to include any opt-out notice on faxes sent with
express permission, contrary to a Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) Regulation that requires such notice on fax
advertisements.  The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an
amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the
matter, which was held on September 19, 2012.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition
with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for
its regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with
express permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition").  On
May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC
dismissed the FCC Petition.  On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an
application for review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full
Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant
the relief sought in the FCC Petition.  The FCC has not ruled on
the application for review.

Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
putative class actions brought under the TCPA, including but not
limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile
advertisements from many of the putative class members, and
intends to defend the actions vigorously.  However, these actions,
if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and other defendants' motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending in New
Jersey, according to the Company's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On June 8, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of
Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers.  The amended complaint
generally alleges that between December 6, 2010, and January 20,
2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia
Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and
misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia
Laboratories obtaining approval from U.S. Food and Drug
Administration of Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia
Laboratories' developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth.
Watson licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia
Laboratories in July 2010.  The amended complaint further alleges
that the defendants failed to disclose material information
concerning the statistical analysis of the clinical studies
performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection with its pursuit
of FDA approval of Prochieve(R).  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages.  On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint.  The motion to
dismiss remains pending.

Watson believes the case is without merit and that it has
substantial meritorious defenses, which it intends to vigorously
pursue.  Additionally, Watson maintains insurance to provide
coverage for the claims alleged in the action.  However,
litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation.  The action, if successful, or if
insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such
claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Certiorari Bid Sought in AndroGel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
seeking review of an appellate court decision denying its Petition
for Rehearing En Banc of a ruling entered in Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s favor is pending before the United States
Supreme Court, according to Watson's November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade
Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC
Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company's September 2006
patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit the Company to co-promote
Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the
services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The complaint
sought equitable relief and civil penalties.  On February 2 and 3,
2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et.
al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV
09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed
Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana
Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al,
Case No. EDCV 09-0228).  On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred
the government and private cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.  On April 21, 2009,
the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against
the Company without prejudice.  The Federal Trade Commission and
the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009.  The private plaintiffs
amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct
before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection
with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and Drug
Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a
SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-
1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31,
Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al.,D. NJ Civ. No.
09-1856 ); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No.
09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D.
MN Civ. No. 09-1168); ( Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms.,
Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v.
Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu,
Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024);
(LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-
2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al ., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837).  On April
20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the
Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey.

On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that
district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re:
AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084),
and all currently-pending related actions are presently before
that court.  On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all
the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted the Company's motions to dismiss the complaints,
except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that
include allegations concerning sham litigation.  Final judgment in
favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade
Commission's action on April 21, 2010.  On June 10, 2010, the
Federal Trade Commission filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing the district court's dismissal
of its complaint.

On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
On July 18, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Federal Trade
Commission's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

On October 4, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed a Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court
seeking review of the decision by the Eleventh Circuit.  The
Company's response to the petition was due on November 5, 2012.

On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police
action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning
conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the Food and
Drug Administration's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar
to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions.  On
October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an
order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on
September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with
the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and
made subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion
to dismiss.  In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs;
including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed
a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints.  On
September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in Cipro Litigation Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court stayed in September 2012 all
proceedings in an antitrust lawsuit related to Cipro(R), according
to Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s November 2, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of lawsuits were filed against
Watson, The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") and other company
affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws.  Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints
and motions seeking class certification.  Approximately 42 were
cases filed against Watson, Rugby and other Watson entities.  Many
of these actions have been dismissed.  Actions remain pending in
various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Florida.  The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged
in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged
agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby
from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R).  The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.
In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively
terminated the matter.  There has been no action in the cases
pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003.

In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding
Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of
Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue their claims as a class.  On August 31, 2009,
the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24,
2009.  On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal
affirmed the Superior Court's judgment.  On December 13, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme
Court.  On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted
review.

On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court entered a stay
of all proceedings in the case pending possible action by the
United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that raises
similar legal issues.

In addition to the pending actions, Watson understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions.  Sanofi has agreed to defend
and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the
claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.

                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.




                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *